Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, May 13, 1998

1998-05-13 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Backers of Proposition 226 began a $2 million television ad campaign yesterday -- starting with a defensive ad intended to defuse three weeks of critical TV spots by their opponents.

Proposition 226 would require labor unions to get written consent

from individual members once a year to use any of their dues money for political purposes.

The new 30-second ad, which will run on TV stations around the state, begins by asserting that "big labor's ads saying Proposition 226 is about HMOs, education and the kitchen sink are not to be believed."

Elementary school in Oakland opens time capsule from 1927San Francisco Chronicle

Brides of March walk through San FranciscoSan Francisco Chronicle

WildCare rescues Western scrub jay from rodent glue trapWildCare

The Regulars: The CarpenterJessica Christian

Massive fire in San Francisco's North BeachDavid Essling

It urges viewers to ignore the opposition's statements and "read (Proposition 226) for yourself."

Supporters of Proposition 226 said they were relieved to finally get some of their own ads on the air, three weeks after the No-on- 226 campaign began an advertising drive that will end up costing an estimated $8 million to $12 million.

The supporters, who include Governor Pete Wilson, said they couldn't avoid starting out their TV campaign on the defensive.

"You have to respond to it, since they (the opponents) are saying the apocalypse will occur if 226 passes," said Mitch Zak, campaign director for Proposition 226.

But opponents of Proposition 226, which includes labor unions, said the ad's defensive tone showed that their own arguments are hitting home with voters.

"They're making accusations against our ads because ours have been so effective," said No-on-226 spokesman Jose Moreno.

The dueling ad campaigns now on the air reflect the different strategies of the two sides.

The pro-226 forces are trying to get voters to focus narrowly on the specifics of the measure -- how it will require unions and employers to get people's consent before withholding money from their paychecks for political purposes. They're painting the measure as a simple issue of fairness for individual union members.

"The issue is so simple you can state it in five to 10 seconds," Bucher said.

The anti-226 forces, meanwhile, are talking much more broadly and speculatively about potential changes in society that could occur with passage of Proposition 226. They argue that the measure will weaken labor's ability to take part in politics and that it will unfairly tilt the scales away from working people on such issues as health care reform.